Mr. Newton is adept in critical thinking and should be acknowledged, if not applauded, for his efforts to point out the lack of it in others. It's hard to argue with any of his points. We should remember that Bitog (and many other sites, for that matter) is intended primarily to be informational and there is a wide variety of people with a similarly wide variety of reasons for participating on this website. My personal opinion is there is very much a lack of critical thinking in general and good for him/her who is able to do it, as it will be of great benefit to them in life. It's not like they teach it much in public schools. That being said, the tone of someone's message matters as well if your intent is to educate. Education is a process and not a one time blunt force trauma to drive home a point. If Mr. Newton would accept more of a 'mentor' posture, his message would likely be received better and his desire to improve the level of discussion on Bitog would be more likely to happen. Are there a lot of people that participate on Bitog that post a lot of meaningless stuff and unsubstantiated postulations? Of course. As is the case pretty much anywhere. There are several good examples of mentors on Bitog. Doug Hillary is one. I know there are several others, but Mr. Hillary is one that immediately jumps to mind because he is consistent in his willingness to share his knowledge and experiences, and his temperament.

Just sayin' --------

_________________________
It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. ..." – Voltaire

Mr. Newton is adept in critical thinking and should be acknowledged, if not applauded, for his efforts to point out the lack of it in others. It's hard to argue with any of his points. We should remember that Bitog (and many other sites, for that matter) is intended primarily to be informational and there is a wide variety of people with a similarly wide variety of reasons for participating on this website. My personal opinion is there is very much a lack of critical thinking in general and good for him/her who is able to do it, as it will be of great benefit to them in life. It's not like they teach it much in public schools. That being said, the tone of someone's message matters as well if your intent is to educate. Education is a process and not a one time blunt force trauma to drive home a point. If Mr. Newton would accept more of a 'mentor' posture, his message would likely be received better and his desire to improve the level of discussion on Bitog would be more likely to happen. Are there a lot of people that participate on Bitog that post a lot of meaningless stuff and unsubstantiated postulations? Of course. As is the case pretty much anywhere. There are several good examples of mentors on Bitog. Doug Hillary is one. I know there are several others, but Mr. Hillary is one that immediately jumps to mind because he is consistent in his willingness to share his knowledge and experiences, and his temperament.

Just sayin' --------

Well said. Other mentors are CATERHAM, Tom NJ, Molecule, GARAK to name a few. I've learned a huge amount from Mr. Newton. He's saved me a lot of money going forward for which I'm grateful.

DN sometimes really gets his teeth into a UOA thread and this was one such thread.The OP's point is that this engine is known through observation and experience to survive just fine on 5K synthetic OCIs.DN's point was that we haven't identified the markers for the condemnation limits of any oil in use in this engine, so we're really just dealing in supposition.The M1 might be done at 5K, but it might be useable for much longer than that.Without an identified marker to use in establishing a condemnation point, we don't know.I think he also meant to impart that if the engine is fine on 5K drains of M1, then it would also be fine on shorter drains of conventional oil.Since we don't have any information as to what we should establish as a marker for condemnation, once again, we don't know.If I were the OP, I'd probably continue with 5K OCIs on synthetic, since this has been shown to work, although with the information we have, we don't know why it works nor what marker in a UOA would indicate that it wasn't working.Dave does sometimes get a little carried away in these threads, but his message is that we should be making oil use and OCI decisions based upon quanitifiable factors, not assumptions. The OP rightly responds that this type of data development is well beyond the practical abilities of any individual owner, particularly if he has to bet his engine to get that data.

- When I post, it often comes off rude; that is unfortunate and a burden I have to shoulder. It often sours the reception of others; I get that. So be it. - When I post, it is with the knowledge that comes from a HUGE amount of UOA data (much, much more than any BITOG pretender).- When I post, it is with the experience that comes from years of statistical process quality control engineering.- When I post, I most always put up my evidence, either directly with my personal work data, or referring to the work of others such as SAE studies, UOA data, etc. - When I post, I ask for those who disagree with me to PROVE their position with facts and data, rather than rhetoric and mythology. Anecdotal tidbits aren't proof.

And typically I'm met with personal attacks and ... (insert sounds of chirping crickets in lieu of real facts) ...

I once participated in a thread and made a very short observation; I was told that it was wrong and not well thought out. I then replied with a very detailed thorough analysis, and included several links as proof. The response to my elaboration? It was said I type too much .... some folks are just never happy with the response they get.

In this thread, I never said the 5k mile syn OCI was a bad idea. I said that there is zero evidence to PROVE it's the right decision; there is no data I've seen to indicate the OP (or anyone else) has any idea of what marker(s) may show the onset of the issue, and therefore NO ONE has ANY idea past a barn-wide SWAG.

What I have said is that IF (emphasis on IF) the UOA contains any marker, then the syn did nothing to distinguish itself from a dino alternative because this UOA is totally average. If the marker(s) is NOT present, then why brag on the lube and point to the OCI duration as the near-perfect solution?

Where is the value of a UOA here? I've already said it; it's OTHER FOLKS UOA data you should be looking at. Look for a marker, if one even exists. Then use it to predict the safe OCI duration, regardless of the lube base stock chosen.

The bug up my posterior here is that the methodology (or more accurately, the lack thereof) is haphazard. The OP brags on the lube and OCI as a best-fit solution, but cannot articulately describe WHY that syn or that OCI is right other than to point at other folks who happen to not have sludged engines; that is correlation and nothing more. Nor can he provide any statistical data as to how many VCM engines do sludge, under what contributing circumstances, and what delineates the OCI duration relative to base stock (dino versus syn) for the onset of that condition. And then folks run to his rescue with personal attacks on me when I ask for proof on concept.

Any dino lube will likely sludge in this engine if run too long. Any syn lube will likely sludge in this engine if run too long.The question I ask is this: is there an identifiable marker, and if so, does it reveal any PROOF as to the duration any particular lube can safely sustain?

I return you to your regularly scheduled rhetoric, hype and personal affronts.

Edited by dnewton3 (02/03/1404:51 AM)

_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

- When I post, it often comes off rude; that is unfortunate and a burden I have to shoulder. It often sours the reception of others; I get that. So be it.

What I have said is that IF (emphasis on IF) the UOA contains any marker, then the syn did nothing to distinguish itself from a dino alternative because this UOA is totally average. If the marker(s) is NOT present, then why brag on the lube and point to the OCI duration as the near-perfect solution?

Nor can he provide any statistical data as to how many VCM engines do sludge, under what contributing circumstances, and what delineates the OCI duration relative to base stock (dino versus syn) for the onset of that condition.

Any dino lube will likely sludge in this engine if run too long.Any syn lube will likely sludge in this engine if run too long.The question I ask is this: is there an identifiable marker, and if so, does it reveal any PROOF as to the duration any particular lube can safely sustain?

Dave you do not need to carry this as a burden. Its simply your natural style and at least you it helps you to articulate your points very well.

So the floor is open for all those who can collaborate useful data to identify:- what are the identifiable markers for the correct OCIs for dino oil and synthetic in this engine (at which point the dino will sludge and the synthetic will sludge) ?- is there any typical driving style or other conditions that actually lead to the sludging issue in these VCM honda engines ?

I get where Dave comes from completely. I have a background in numbers and analysis and know the gulf in knowledge and understanding between people who do what Dave does and a lot of others here, including some with high post counts.

(I don't mean to demean anyone, just in the style of Dave, I'm telling it how it is).

The only thing I would say though is that in the absence of data, people need to make decisions still. And I think what happens is that those people, without the background to understand where Dave is coming from, will feel their opinions of deciding to play it safe (in their opinion), are being ignored in the discussion.

One last point for Dave is that if it is your mission to educate, then it would be logical to take some time to figure out how to position what you say to make sure it is received well. The choice to do so or not is similar in mechanism to the choice some make to decide to go with synthetic.

Would like to add though that I am incredibly appreciative of Dave's contributions to this forum.

Ok so the OP made a decision to play it safe based on the unfortunate experience of others. He doesn't have years of research and data analysis to back up his decision.

Dave are you playing the devils advocate? Or just spewing questions that no one with any normal amount of money can answer?

Why is it that can you only criticize? Consider the two responses

1. Your a bum! how can you change oil every 5k? What massive waste! You don't need a syn, just use Dino(I don't know how long but use it anyway) how can you make a decision without first spending thousands of dollars and hours researching? You must be a lowlife dirtbag who can't tie their own shoes if you change m1 every 5k. Only a halfwit would EVER do that!

2. I applaude your effort to maintain your engine whose history is very problematic. That being said I think you will save money by using Dino oil. May I suggest using Dino and getting a UOA every 1k miles starting with a VOA. Run the oil until you see a red flag on the wear and or viscosity, indicating the need to change the oil. Yes this May potentially damage the engine but I believe that the UOA will give us a sign before any damage may occur. This may seem a bit expensive at first but when you realize that you can use Free after rebate Dino oil and filters your savings will begin to add up.

PS if my method causes your engine to fail I'll buy you a new engine and or pay for repairs. Cheers, Dave

Where did he brag and say his method is tried and true, the true holy grail of VCM engine oil and OCI. did he call anyone names for not doing exactly as he has done??? Or was he simply showing what his decision has led to? Mb bragging When he said the engine did not burn a drop of oil? I'd take that as a statement giving useful information that the UOA can't provide.

What if he had done many UOA on the same oil and taken it to say 12k. Maybe the UOA shows nothing alarming and the engine croaks , would you have applauded his resolve to stick it out as a TRUE statistician or would you have told him he's a bum for not changing his oil based on some other research or fact that doesn't exist in anyones mind but your own?

Maybe I'll just call everyone names and criticize everyone's choices regardless of what they are.

To be honest if I was the OP I would either do exactly as he is currently doing or slowly add miles like 500 or so to each OCI and look for any small changes on UOA Even then if the latter would make him lose sleep why risk it. What is the cost of M1 and 5k OCI over 100,000 miles? $30 x 20 OCI for a grand total of $600.

How many professional statisticians and engineers are testing their own engines and pushing their oil to destruction in their new daily driver cars? Or is this expensive research conducted using company funds and not someones livelihood on line.

Well said. How much more over the course of say 100K is the Mobil 1 going to cost over dino at 5K OCI?Not using Wally world price but national chain prices on sale 20 oil changes..PP or Ultra synthetic and a Bosch filter @ $32 = $640PYB with filter @ $23 = $460

For a savings of $180 over 100K or $540 over 300K which should be close to end of life. Now throw a $25 UOA in the mix every 20K = a Total savings of $165 over the 300K or the life of the engine.

While i don't have all these statistics i do have engines that i took apart (over a dozen at last count, including one just 3 weeks ago) That are staying clean on synthetic at a 5K OCI.One i cleaned at 80K that died on 7500 OCI synthetic and has now over 190K and is still clean.

I don't know about anyone else but for $165 over the life of the car to pretty much guarantee the engine will not sludge is a excellent return on investment.I do 5K OCI with synthetic on all my engines or once a year on small engines like snowblowers and lawnmowers.I don't feel the need or financial pinch to squeeze the last drop of life out of cheap engine oil. We are talking pocket change here, not even the price of med coffee once a week.

But for the sake of argument you did go the dino and UOA route and the UOA didn't catch anything unusual and the engine sludged or varnished badly then what?I don't need the SAE or anyone else to tell me its going to cost more than $165 I guarantee it will.

Hey i am just a mechanic working on engines for 40 years so what do i know other than what my lying eyes and experience tell me but thats not "proof".

Well said. How much more over the course of say 100K is the Mobil 1 going to cost over dino at 5K OCI?Not using Wally world price but national chain prices on sale 20 oil changes..PP or Ultra synthetic and a Bosch filter @ $32 = $640PYB with filter @ $23 = $460

For a savings of $180 over 100K or $540 over 300K which should be close to end of life. Now throw a $25 UOA in the mix every 20K = a Total savings of $165 over the 300K or the life of the engine.

While i don't have all these statistics i do have engines that i took apart (over a dozen at last count, including one just 3 weeks ago) That are staying clean on synthetic at a 5K OCI.One i cleaned at 80K that died on 7500 OCI synthetic and has now over 190K and is still clean.

I don't know about anyone else but for $165 over the life of the car to pretty much guarantee the engine will not sludge is a excellent return on investment.I do 5K OCI with synthetic on all my engines or once a year on small engines like snowblowers and lawnmowers.I don't feel the need or financial pinch to squeeze the last drop of life out of cheap engine oil. We are talking pocket change here, not even the price of med coffee once a week.

But for the sake of argument you did go the dino and UOA route and the UOA didn't catch anything unusual and the engine sludged or varnished badly then what?I don't need the SAE or anyone else to tell me its going to cost more than $165 I guarantee it will.

Hey i am just a mechanic working on engines for 40 years so what do i know other than what my lying eyes and experience tell me but thats not "proof".

Well said Paul, however I think the need for a UOA every 10K miles in one of these engines would be a better idea. I think more frequent checks are warranted to see if a problem is arising, or to see if a UOA can give you any indication of this kind of problem at all. IMO pulling the valve cover covering the problem head might be money better spent for this application than a UOA. JMO

While i don't have all these statistics i do have engines that i took apart (over a dozen at last count, including one just 3 weeks ago) That are staying clean on synthetic at a 5K OCI.One i cleaned at 80K that died on 7500 OCI synthetic and has now over 190K and is still clean.

But for the sake of argument you did go the dino and UOA route and the UOA didn't catch anything unusual and the engine sludged or varnished badly then what?

Hey i am just a mechanic working on engines for 40 years so what do i know other than what my lying eyes and experience tell me but thats not "proof".

Thanks!In your 40-year extensive real world experience, are there any other engines with similar sludging issues ?If you have taken apart the R18 Honda Civic engines in the past 5-7 years, could you please commend if these engines are prone to sludge or just varnish in case OCI is extended beyond 5K to 8K miles using dino oil and synthetic oil, respectively ?

Doing a UOA @ $25 every 10K instead of every 20K would add anther $375 making it now $210 more expensive than the cost of running synthetic over the engines 300K life.Pulling the covers is about $80 in gaskets and 2.3 hours labor. Another loss.

This is basically a very good engine that isn't prone to head gasket failure, cam or crank problems, just this issue on the VCM engines. IMO there is more than enough real world evidence that they can be kept clean cheaply and with no more effort, i don't understand the argument against it.

Doing a UOA @ $25 every 10K instead of every 20K would add anther $375 making it now $210 more expensive than the cost of running synthetic over the engines 300K life.Pulling the covers is about $80 in gaskets and 2.3 hours labor. Another loss.

This is basically a very good engine that isn't prone to head gasket failure, cam or crank problems, just this issue on the VCM engines. IMO there is more than enough real world evidence that they can be kept clean cheaply and with no more effort, i don't understand the argument against it.

No argument from me........I'd use synthetic and dump it every 5K if that's all it takes to protect one from that mess you showed in the pictures.